Generative AI and the Productivity Divide: Human-AI Complementarities in Education
Authors: Lihi Idan, Bharat Anand
Organizations: Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, Texas A&M University · Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University
Abstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is transforming how firms create, process, and apply knowledge, yet little is known about the heterogeneity of its productivity effects across users. We report results from a randomized controlled experiment in which participants-analogs of early-career knowledge workers-were assigned to self-study a technical domain using either traditional resources or large-language-model (LLM) assistance. On average, GenAI access significantly increased task performance, but the distribution of gains was highly uneven. Improvements were not predicted by GPA or prior knowledge, but by \textit{AI Interaction Competence (AIC)} -- the ability to elicit, filter, and verify model outputs. High-AIC participants realized outsized gains; low-AIC participants saw limited or even negative marginal returns. A scaffolding intervention (conceptual maps) reduced outcome variance, indicating that standardized workflows can mitigate inequality in AI-mediated performance. We interpret these findings through the lens of human-AI complementarities: GenAI raises mean productivity while introducing a new axis of capability inequality. Managerially, firms should pair GenAI access with short AIC micro-training and simple standard operating procedures to capture value consistently and avoid uneven adoption outcomes.
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly adopted in the workplace and in education, yet the empirical evidence on AI's impact remains mixed. We propose a model of human-AI interaction to better understand and analyze several mechanisms by which AI affects productivity. In our setup, human agents with varying skill levels exert utility-maximizing effort to produce certain task outcomes with AI assistance. We find that incorporating either endogeneity in skill development or in AI unreliability can induce a productivity paradox: increased levels of AI assistance may degrade productivity, leading to potentially significant shortfalls. Moreover, we examine the long-term distributional effect of AI on skill, and demonstrate that skill polarization can emerge in steady state when accounting for heterogeneity in AI literacy -- the agent's capability to identify and adapt to inaccurate AI outputs. Our results elucidate several mechanisms that may explain the emergence of human-AI productivity paradoxes and skill polarization, and identify simple measures that characterize when they arise.
Researchers assessing competent generative-AI use at work must choose among self-reports, objective tests, and measures of oversight and reliance. We conducted a structured, seeded review of 24 focal empirical publications, starting from the 2024 COSMIN-based review and adding a targeted update through 17 August 2026. We grouped the measures into four domains: knowledge and use, epistemic oversight, reliance calibration, and operational control of tool-using agents. In an exploratory meta-analysis, we pooled three direct subjective-objective correlations from one research program (REML r = .055; Hartung-Knapp 95% CI [-.047, .156]; combined reported N = 2,765). We could not resolve a discrepancy between the largest study's reported correlation and p-value, leaving its weight uncertain. Adding a synthetic mean of 12 cross-factor correlations from a fourth study gave r = .079 (95% CI [-.025, .181]). This sensitivity analysis concerns a broader comparison. From this small evidence base, we cannot establish a population correlation, validate workplace cutoffs, or justify substituting self-ratings for performance scores. We identified tests of foundation knowledge (AICOS-S and GLAT) and measures of verification, reliance, trust, and dependency. We found no validated individual-level instrument in the focal corpus that tests the full combination of agent scope, permissions, recovery, state isolation, independent review, and evidence-based closure; some cover subsets. We propose a four-layer workplace battery with non-compensatory decision rules, but have not tested its thresholds or whether it improves on other assessment approaches.
Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading. Schools still measure unaided performance, yet the real task is to produce good work with AI: framing an ill-defined task, judging the output, and steering the model toward a better result. This ability is rarely assessed in its own right; where measured, it collapses into one "prompting" score that cannot diagnose why AI use succeeds or fails. We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills we abbreviate FJS: Framing (specifying an ill-defined task before invoking AI), Judging (evaluating output for errors and unstated assumptions), and Steering (iteratively redirecting the model). Its distinguishing claim is the separation of pre-generation Framing from post-generation Steering, with Judging as the gate between. We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab, an open platform that presents flawed AI output and scores them independently. Over simulated learners (generated and graded by different models), the skills dissociate: each tracks its own manipulated competence while staying flat in the others, and grades become correlated when one competence is shared across all three (convergent and discriminant validity), across grader backends from two providers. Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.